Bremspropeller

WW2 type of ASW aircraft relied heavily on getting the subs at the surface, which won't happen all that often if you're looking for nuke-powered subs. Also, the specialized ASW aircraft do have more interesting stations and capabilities and they'll cover a large timeframe from the 60s to today (version dependant, of course). Capability- and performance-wise, both the Atlantic and Orion are the most interesting with the Neptune coming in close behind (quirky jet-engine pods, anybody?). I'm personally not terribly interested in the S-3. If one would want to do ASW, most sensible modules would be (in order) - P-3, if you're into shutting down engines to stretch endurance - Atlantic, if you like to have the right number of engines to begin with - P-2, if you like radials, but need that jet-time to get into the airlines

We'll need those.

Yes, please do that ED. Or just introduce a special options menu checkmark that makes people that don't have the force sensing hardware fly the jet and not PIO/ APC themselves all across the sky.

The first part of your turn isn't a turn at all, but just an AoA excursion that happens and then makes the airplane start to change trajectory. Notice the droops coming down (droops and slats are coming down at AoA >8°). The aircraft then hesitates with that AoA established and then starts to pull through the turn. Three things might be the cause, related or at least worth considering: - the F1 in game actually models the "Arthur" artificial feel system, so you sometimes have to pull more for the same result => you can switch that off in the specials menu and test it then again (Does it make the aircraft behave more like the F-5 then?) - the F1 is aerodynamically slightly different: it has a larger effective wing-sweep (hence a flatter dCl/d@* curve) and thus will behave a bit more mushy at first, when large pitch-rates are commanded - the F-5 is a bit more nose-heavy, so AoA excursions like in the F1 or MiG-21 aren't quite as easy, unless you have a boatload of trim ___ * read 'alpha'

Has there ever been a Gazelle variant with any kind of lazing capability, including handheld designators? This would bump up usefulness of the module even higher.

Hey guys, I was doing some 1v1 BFM practice with @jaguara5 yesterday, and we both noticed that the AIM-9J would never come up with a locking tone. We each fired a missile when believing to be inside parameters without a "locked" tone (both missiles tracked). We'd only be able to get a locking tone when pointing the missiles at the sun. Cheers

I'll just leave those here for later. Wing down (flaps up) launch (5:07) crashing d/t partial/ asymmetric UHT malfunction (8:00) Flying away from a bad ramp strike (8:45) Wing down, flaps up (droops blown) trap (first scene)

There was a re-winging programme in place. IIRC, the new wing came with different issues, like alternating loadpaths through the structure, leading to fatigue in different places. Before the re-winging programme, lots of fleet Intruders had relatively low fatigue-related g limits. The worst were the KA-6s.

Thanks for the tip!

Yes. RD is the only actual fast jet airfield in Israel on the Syria map. Chek your temperature and wind, which are going to make a good deal of a difference with heavy loads in the Scooter.

@fausete do you think the proposal above is feasible? Cheers

There are other factors at play, like tyre pressure (possibly deflated a bit for shore-only ops) and hydroplaning-issues. Some aircraft were more subceptable than others. The A-7 with hi pressure tyres supposedly needed unflared-landings to prevent hydroplaning on wet runways and unfavourable winds. I also seem to remember a tendency for tyre blow-outs on flared landings for hi pressure A-7 tyres. Not 100% sure if I put that memory into the correct file-cabinet, though.

What a helpful tip for new people trying out AAR. Ever thought about instructing?

If the ducking tanker didn't reel it's hose back in after a couple of minutes, people had an easier time. I've seen quite a few people almost putting the tip in, only to have the tanker zip up the hose and throw them off their game.

An-26 FTW! We need a proper Africa map. For reasons.

Did you power up/ engage cooling of the missiles? The EXT switch right outboard of the wingtip-missile station buttons should take care of that.

The effect in game is different to RL. In game, the lateral offset that benefits from the drag reduction is too large. Also, the rotation-onset when flying into the wake field is rather large, instead of a gradual increase with a defined core. It's close to impossible to stay at a determined position inside the wake-field. Especially for similar sized aircraft the effect is too pronounced. NASA flight testing of two Hornets shows a FF reduction of 13 to 20% depending on flight-condition (slower leads to greater reductions) - and this only when large throttle-movements to maintain longitudinal position aren't made: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20030075684/downloads/20030075684.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/AFF/index.html The effect IRL takes place over pronounced longitudinal distances, but requires rather precise lateral and vertical position (as one would expect). In game, my observation has been rather the opposite: A very strong dependency on a defined longitudinal distance and a rather large influenced lateral field. My observation has also been throttle-reductions of about 30% and possibly more, when very close. Keep in mind that thrust and FF doesn't scale linearly in turbojets, so the actual FF-reduction was probably more. It would be cool if anybody could manage to refly the test-setup in game and show their observed data.

Free energy isn't sensible physics. It's going to become interesting with buddy-pod tankers. Just plug four jets in line and tail end Charlie gets to ride in idle.

Wakes aren't modelled deeply at all. They'll give you a nice downstream-effect, but up close, they're a good deal off. The leading airplane will actually suck you forward if you're in a sweet-spot position (you'll need less and less power to stay in place). You'll also be flying sideways if you're hugging somebody's wingtip. This shows that the mesh is quite coarse, which makes sense as you don't want to run DCS as a CFD calculation.

Looks more like Agean Batic tbh, though Love the first pic.

That's not quite true. Turbulence is always a result of wind shear. Either vertically or horizontally. If there's no shear, there'll be no turbulence. Near the ground, shear is mostly a result of obstacles. Higher aloft, it's more dependant on frontal activities (that includes jetstreams), but gravity-waves may fravel downrange of ground-obstacles (eg. mountain waves) for up to a thousand miles, so it's a mixed bag. Hence if you travel at high wind-speeds, but no shearing layers, you'll be fine and won't have any turbulence at all. For thermals, you'll need a good representaion of atmspherical dynamics (such as convective potential vs capping layers, etc) and ground-air interaction. So far, our "beautiful clouds" (TM) are mostly stratus or cirrus type. The real fun, however, only starts with convection and multilayer CB clouds and associated atmospheric dynamics. At the end, you'll have to compromise between fidelity and game-code limitations. It would be cool if DCS could depict actual weather conditions, though.

I'd also fall for a Cheburashka. Because it's cool.

Sorry folks, but the only fun part the C-2 offers is landing on a carrier. A Transall would add dirt strips (well, we'd need a potent map for that), tanking (both on- and off-loading gas) and the possibility of a SIGINT variant. C-160 > C-2. I'd also like to see an An-24/26 series transport, so the reds get to play, too. All the proposed modern stuff isn't interesting at all. The C-130J will sufficiently tick that box.